Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Star Wars Prequels Media Movies

11,000 Words on the Star Wars Trilogy DVDs 435

Posted by michael from the han-shoots-first dept.
The Barking Dog writes "On Monday, September 27th DVD Verdict posted a bantha-sized review of the Star Wars Trilogy. Written by ten people and weighing in at over 11,000 words, it's probably the net's most thorough, extensive review of not only the DVDs, but Star Wars's impact on sci-fi and filmmaking in general. And as one of the contributors, I think that's a good thing."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

11,000 Words on the Star Wars Trilogy DVDs More

11,000 Words on the Star Wars Trilogy DVDs

Comments Filter:

  • 11 Words on the Star Wars Trilogy DVDs (Condensed) (Score:5, Funny)

    by The_Rippa ( 181699 ) * on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @01:50PM (#10376188)
    You are a sucker for purchasing this for the third time.

  • Lucas sucks (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @01:50PM (#10376189)
    Repeated 5,500 times?

  • 11,000 Words? (Score:3, Funny)

    by lucabrasi999 ( 585141 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @01:52PM (#10376203) Journal

    Bah. Not impressive. Give me 11,000 words written in Gungan, then I'll be impressed.

  • And as one of the contributors... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @01:52PM (#10376210)
    And as one of the contributors, I think that's a good thing.

    Well you would.

    • Re:And as one of the contributors... (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      What? Did you expect him to say "And as one of the contributors, I thought it was a complete waste of time?" Then again, who knows, maybe he's saving that for his review of Ep3.

  • Good Thing? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @01:53PM (#10376212)
    How is a large review of the DVD set of 25-year-old movies a good thing? Is the number of words supposed to impress readers? Does it provide any significant insight not already published about the movies? Is it full of "gee whiz, I sure liked Star Wars!" commentary?
    Reviews are meant to be shorter than the movies themselves.

  • Already Slashdotted Into Oblivion (Score:5, Funny)

    by falloutboy ( 150069 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @01:53PM (#10376219)
    I'll try again later, but if I see even a paragraph on who shot who at the cantina, I'm going to fall on my lightsaber.

  • 11,000 words? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @01:53PM (#10376224)


    Wouldn't 11 screenshots be just as helpful?

  • At least he owned up to it... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by benpharr ( 163979 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @01:53PM (#10376225) Homepage
    At least the submitter owned up to being one of the authors of the review. Others haven't been as scrupulous. :)

  • Now that's something the internet has been lacking (Score:4, Funny)

    by JudgeFurious ( 455868 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @01:53PM (#10376226)
    An 11,000 word group masturbation project based on the "Holy Trilogy".

  • I saw a shorter/better review... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @01:54PM (#10376237)
    The Cookiethievery review [cookiethievery.com] covers every released film, including a preview of the next one. Almost required visiting for any hardcore Star Wars fan (will you be standing in line for a week for the next one?)

  • its the not the size (Score:4, Funny)

    by 2057 ( 600541 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @01:54PM (#10376243) Homepage Journal
    It's not the size of the review its how you use it...err..

  • Hope you showed your friends first (Score:5, Funny)

    by potus98 ( 741836 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @01:55PM (#10376254) Journal

    "...and as one of the contributors, I think that's a good thing."

    "Hey I know, I'll submit a story to /. ..." *KABOOOOOOM*

    That server went down faster than a barge gaurd in a sarlac pit.

  • Not that impressive... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bamafan77 ( 565893 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @01:56PM (#10376266)
    "On Monday, September 27th DVD Verdict posted a bantha-sized review of the Star Wars Trilogy. Written by ten people and weighing in at over 11,000 words..."

    That's nothing. I've seen more effort put into discussions concerning the far-reaching ramifications of Greedo shooting first and Han stepping over Jabba's tail alone.

  • a bit long, but at least its harmless (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Fluidic Binary ( 554336 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @01:57PM (#10376267) Homepage
    While I did enjoy star wars throughout my childhood, I can't help but think that some people go a bit overboard. If you enjoy that sort of thing then great, but I personally have no use for a review that is that long.

    It is a review, which as for as I am aware should be concise.

    But I must admit it is nice to see people being enthusiastic about something benign.

    And it did make me smile to read the headline.

    So carry on, I guess.

  • /.ed with no comments posted (Score:5, Funny)

    by FuzzyBad-Mofo ( 184327 ) <fuzzybad AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @01:57PM (#10376276)
    I sense a great disturbance in the force.. as if thousands of MySQL connections cried out in anguish, then were silenced.
  • Tim Benzedrine and Hashberry. Bastahds!

  • "Star Wars" Made "Star Trek: TMP" Possible (Score:3, Interesting)

    by reporter ( 666905 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @02:00PM (#10376299) Homepage
    "Star Wars" (chapter IV) brought science fiction back into vogue. After it debuted on the big screen, it ran continuously in many theaters for more than a year: a huge surprise for Hollywood.

    Then, Gene Roddenberry saw his opportunity to resurrect Star Trek. Despite the fact that he used the same terrible actors and actresses, he convinced Paramount Pictures to fund "Star Trek: The Motion Picture".

    Without "Star Wars", would "Star Trek: TMP" have been possible?

    By the way, "Star Wars" is not really about science fiction. Science fiction is about belief in technology. Yet, when Luke Skywalker approached the rubicon in his ill-fated life, he faced a choice between technology (using a computer to guide 2 missiles into the Death Star's exhaust) and faith (using his belief in the power of good to guide the 2 missiles). He turned off the computer and followed his faith.

    "Star Wars" is a knights' and princess' tale shrowded with buzz words from science fiction. The fundamental story is about the greater battle of good versus evil. In this life, evil seems to win too often, so we are enthralled by a movie that says, "Sometimes. Just sometimes. Good wins."

    • Without "Star Wars", would "Star Trek: TMP" have been possible? By the way, "Star Wars" is not really about science fiction...

      Is the parent suggesting that Star Trek is science fiction? Since I am a fan of both, I don't want to invite a flame war, but...

      I agree that Star Wars is "a knights' and princess' tale shrowded with buzz words from science fiction". But I would also go on to say that Star Trek is "an ongoing soap opera shrowded with buzz words from science fiction".

      Both are a lot of fun, but I

    • "Star Wars" is a knights' and princess' tale shrowded with buzz words from science fiction.

      Hence the term "Science Fantasy".

    • Re:"Star Wars" Made "Star Trek: TMP" Possible (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mordaximus ( 566304 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @02:25PM (#10376597)
      Hate to break it to you, but Gene Roddenberry began work on the new Star Trek in 1975 (Two years before Star Wars had any sway)... Originaly for TV, it evolved into a Motion Picture later on. Not to mention the cartoon between 1973 and 1975.

      Star Trek was HUGE in the 70s, moreso than when it was in original runs.

      Methinks that maybe you weren't born when Star Wars or Star Trek made their original theater runs :)

    • Science fiction is about belief in technology.

      I've never seen a definition of science fiction as "belief in technology." The science fiction I've read usually shows how technology leads to the destruction of society or the world.

    • Re:"Star Wars" Made "Star Trek: TMP" Possible (Score:5, Funny)

      by Gzip Christ ( 683175 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @02:34PM (#10376687) Homepage
      Sometimes. Just sometimes. Good wins.
      Evil will always triumph over good because good is dumb.

      (Now that is a good movie.)

    • Re:"Star Wars" Made "Star Trek: TMP" Possible (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Without "Star Wars", would "Star Trek: TMP" have been possible?

      These are the questions that haunt us. What sort of nightmarish world would we today inhabit had there never been a "Star Trek: The Motion Picture"? No, no, it's too horrible even to contemplate. Let us instead give daily thanks in our prayers that there was "Star Wars", and for all the blessings it has brought upon us. For we are huge nerds, and so forever shall be. Amen.
    • Without "Star Wars", would "Star Trek: TMP" have been possible? Maybe. But much, much more imnportant: without Star Wars, would the Buck Rogers series starring Gil Gerard have been possible?
    • "Without "Star Wars", would "Star Trek: TMP" have been possible?"

      Yes. TMP was originally 'Star Trek: Phase II', a new series that they started building sets for. When the change was made to TMP, it was still well before SW had come out. ST was coming whether SW was there or not.

      A better question would be "Was STII a result of Star Wars?" I personally believe the answer is still no, as nothing in the first movie indicated there would be any sort of SW's action. But, still, I imagine somebody has an i

  • Darth Varder isn't such a badass.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by thewiz ( 24994 ) * on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @02:00PM (#10376308)
    20. His chest-mounted life support computer also doubles as an electronic day planner.

    Big deal, I hacked my pacemaker to double as an iPod!

  • My review of the SW DVD (Score:5, Funny)

    by john_anderson_ii ( 786633 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @02:01PM (#10376310)
    VHS Remastered THX Collector's Set....$39
    DVD Remastered THX Collector's Set....$49
    Forcing wife to watch the whole trilogy yet again....priceless.

  • What's the point? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by solive1 ( 799249 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @02:01PM (#10376324)
    The most significant change is the replacement of the Anakin ghost at the end of Return of the Jedi with Hayden Christensen.

    I haven't bought the DVDs yet, but this is the one thing I read about the changes that really aggravated me. Is it not possible for Anakin to have aged? Obviously a great deal of time has passed since Episode III, and wouldn't it make sense for Anakin to look older? This seems to be George's biggest mistake in his second set of updates, in my opinion. As the article said, at least they didn't replace Alec Guiness.

    • Anakin's Redemption Diminished? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by goldspider ( 445116 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @02:12PM (#10376446) Homepage
      I thought the point of the "ghost" was to show the Jedi at (presumably) the latest point in their life they were "good".

      If that's the case (and maybe it's not), isn't the importance of Anakin Skywalker's redemption somewhat diminished if his apparition doesn't really reflect the fact that he abandoned the Dark Side at the end?

      This is probably a debate for bigger Star Wars nerds than I, but I thought I should at least throw that out to the discussion.
      • Good point. I didn't think of that. Honestly, I'm not sure, because in the original movie, you had never seen Anakin's face before, but Yoda and Obi-Wan looked the same as they always had.

        I'm not a big enough Star Wars nerd either. I know the movies decently, and that's about it. Someone else may know more.
      • Hmmm...I think I once read that the Jedi ghost is supposedly from one's most "pure" stage in life. Considering Anakin, he would probably be most pure in his early life while Obi-won and Yoda were probably most pure just before thier deaths. I could be wrong tho...

      • MOD PARENT UP! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Tibor the Hun ( 143056 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @02:41PM (#10376787)
        (my first ever MPU! post)

        Absolutely, it was all about the redemption!

        And to erase the redeemed Anakin is to nullify the moment when he saw his son being zapped by the Emperor, deciding "fuck it, it was never supposed to be this way", and taking the Emperor out.

        I didn't buy the DVDs, nor do I plan to, especially since now I wonder whether in "Lucas' Vision" Anakin ever got redeemed, or if Anakin was truly destroyed by Vader.

        Not that it really matters, but it does change the premise of the movie.

      • So explain this... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gosand ( 234100 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @02:43PM (#10376812)
        I thought the point of the "ghost" was to show the Jedi at (presumably) the latest point in their life they were "good". If that's the case (and maybe it's not), isn't the importance of Anakin Skywalker's redemption somewhat diminished if his apparition doesn't really reflect the fact that he abandoned the Dark Side at the end?

        So how the hell did Luke recognize him?

  • When will the media get this right??

    There is no way Star Wars is sci-fi. It's space opera (and third rate at that).

  • Video Quality (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cowclops ( 630818 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @02:03PM (#10376341)
    In light of the massive restoration effort by Lowry Digital, who did an awesome job with Indiana Jones (and other movies) the color quality is messed up beyond belief. To put it simply, theres too much red, and everything on the whole is too saturated. It just doesn't look natural. On the other hand, its quite sharp and clean considering how bad Lowry Digital said the condition was when they got it. It probably wasn't their fault on the color. If I recall correctly, GL wanted it to make it look similiar to the prequels. Since they were shot on HDCam it was probably just naturally saturated. Trying to adjust the film to look the same way however, has just left it looking completely unnatural. Even more interestingly is how when Lucas transffered Phantom Menace to DVD, he went hdcam->film->dvd to make it match the film look of the original trilogy. Now, he's tried to make the original trilogy match up in quality with the prequels by making them look "more digital." Example #346 of GL not being able to make up his mind.

  • SW... Dystopian? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sielwolf ( 246764 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @02:05PM (#10376369) Homepage Journal
    In Star Wars, the future is a mess. From the rough-and-tumble welded and plated spaceships to the brushed concrete buildings full of dingy flickering lights, to dusty deserts and seedy cantinas, the universe envisioned in Star Wars had a gritty, industrial look, a jaded cynicism that had rarely been expressed in cinema before

    Eh? I can't agree with this. Outside of Mos Eisley, the world of the first three Star Wars movies was industrial, yet clean. Just go to the scenes inside the spaceships, the Death Star. The Imperial design was "blocky", but that is far from dystopian. It was more Victorian SF than say 1930's Futurism. Even the rebel base at the end of New Hope was pretty clean.

    And even Mos Eisley wasn't that bad (apart from being a wretched hive of scum and villainy). Dark? Ok... it was a bar. Outside it look about as dystopian as the ape town in Planet of the Apes. And that movie got dark and wierd when they found the remains of NYC (especially in Beneath with its post-apocolyptic underground).

    Bleek futures had existed in Hollywood before, and some were on a more grimey tip than SW: Soylent Green, The Omega Man. Basically anywhere you had a post-fallout society, you had some pessimistic views, a pessimism that Star Wars lacks.

    And that's just film. Dystopia was pretty stock in SF literature. The world of the proles was bad in 1984 or that even that of the Morlocks in Time Machine.

    The true thrust of dystopianism in film is usually agreed to be the merger of SF and Film Noir. This achieved critical mass with Ridley Scotts movies (Blade Runner, Alien both mentioned in this article). And many would point to Godard's 1956 Alphaville as the first movie to explore this connection. It even used a form of Orwell's Newspeak.

    There's probably more geneological ties to those movies than the pretty standard rebel v. evil empire aesthetic in Star Wars. And all of this does nothing to diminish the series' gargantuan impact.

    • The Future? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Thu25245 ( 801369 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @02:14PM (#10376475)
      In Star Wars, the future is a mess...

      It was a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. Where do you get this "future?"

      • Their words, not mine. The article spends most of the section qualifying SW not being SF but using it as a watermark in SF. Kind of confusing really.

        The part above the quote I used:

        On the subject of science fiction: Star Wars ain't it. In the strictest of senses, this is completely true.

        [snip]

        But like the Force itself, the influence of Star Wars flows in all directions; despite not technically being a science fiction film, the influence Star Wars had on the science fiction genre as a whole is practic

  • OB Simpson's quote: (Score:3, Funny)

    by comrade009 ( 797517 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @02:06PM (#10376385)
    (sticking head out of car) Nerdddddddddddddddd!!!!!!

  • Han fired first. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by otis wildflower ( 4889 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @02:17PM (#10376504) Homepage
    You know, I really don't mind Lucas going in and tinkering with SFX, and when he says he puts stuff in he wanted to get in originally but couldn't because of budget and technology, I'm happy to give him the benefit of the doubt. Even if the newer SFX are digitally fakey, even if they're somewhat _silly_, I can get over it.

    What I _CAN'T_ get over is changing lines of dialogue and neutering characters at the editing deck for inscrutable purposes.

    Han fired first. Period. The fact that he did speaks to his character, and changing that changes his character. If Harrison Ford cared, I'm sure he'd be pissed.

    The A&E documentary released to hype up the DVD set goes into how during Empire they kept shooting takes of the Carbonite scene between Han and Leia, how Ford couldn't get a good take with "I love you too" in response to Leia's "I love you". Ford ad-libbed Han's most famous line, and the only reason it survived and made cinema history is because Lucas wasn't directing.

    • Re:Han fired first. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:25PM (#10377288) Journal
      Han fired first. Period. The fact that he did speaks to his character, and changing that changes his character.

      In the 2004 edition, Han fires pretty much simultaneously as Greedo. Maybe slightly after, but IMHO so shortly afterwards that it can't have been a reaction to Greedo, but more that both was thinking the same thing, and firing about the same time.

      What I think Lucas tried to do in the Special Edition wasn't to make Solo look like a wimp, but to make Greedo look evil. He is more evil than Han Solo after all. You can say he's as much as a scumbag as you want, but he do belong to the good guys. So I think Lucas considered it logical to make Greedo shoot first in SE, then realized his mistake and tried to fix it up while maintaining Greedo's intents (that it -- to not just sit there waiting to get killed).
    • You know, I really don't mind Lucas going in and tinkering with SFX, and when he says he puts stuff in he wanted to get in originally but couldn't because of budget and technology, I'm happy to give him the benefit of the doubt.

      Gosh, that sure is nice of you. I'm certain that George Lucas is grateful that you're willing to tolerate his making certain changes to his own creative work.

      Han fired first. Period.

      What I don't understand is how Lucas could have made such a change without first consulting otis
  • In the time it takes to read through 11K worth of review, you could have watched the movie.

    I'm pretty sure we all understand the movie. Afterall, it has been around since the days Carrie Fisher looked hot in a bikini.

  • DVDs are good - 111 word review (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kooshvt ( 86122 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @02:20PM (#10376544)
    I never purchased or watched the special editions of the movies prior to purchasing the DVDs. I felt that they were an abomination and should be avoided. Unfortunatly I was bored the other night and broke down and bought them (I just got a 51" widescreen tv and really wanted to see them).

    Overall most of the enhancements are ok. There are only 4 things I would have eliminated or not changed.
    1) Han shoots first.
    2) The silly extended dance routine in Jabba's Palace.
    3) Hayden Christensen as a spirit at the end of Jedi. This just doesn't make sense.
    4) The celebration song at the end of Jedi. I missed the old one.

  • Wait, 11 000 words = 22 000 bytes (Score:5, Funny)

    by Psionicist ( 561330 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @02:21PM (#10376554)
    1. 11 000 words = 22 000 bytes.
    2. Assuming an average word is 5 bytes, the text is actually 4 400 words.
    3. Repeat.

    The review is actually just one quad word in hexadecimal notation: 10CA550CC5.

    Oh what the heck:

    4. Profit.

  • Misread the summary (Score:5, Funny)

    by goldspider ( 445116 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @02:23PM (#10376570) Homepage
    Maybe I'm just really tired, but did anyone else read "Written by ten people weighing in at over 11,000 pounds" in that summary?

    Comon, it's not like it's that unplausible!

  • My Impressions of the DVD set (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gonarat ( 177568 ) * on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @02:24PM (#10376572)

    Overall, I was impressed with the DVD set, although at times Lucas is trying too much to link them to the first three movies.

    Good things:

    Most of the changes that were from the 1997 releases were good IMHO, such as making Mos Eisley look bigger and "more alive", making the Cloud City a little less claustrophobic, and making the Death Star and Alderaan explosions a little more impressive. I also liked Jabba's new band in Ep-6, it seemed the kind of excess a crime lord like Jabba would have.

    The changes I didn't care much for includes changing the Han/Greedo shooting scene (again - that should have been left alone), changes in the shooting scene in the Prison Block (Imperial Personnel are no longer obviously shot), the new Anakin Skywalker ghost at the end of EP6 along with all of the firework scenes from various locations (actually, I have mixed feeling on this one -- I know that the Emperor was killed, but would the Empire crumble that quickly? We are talking about hours to a day or so from the destruction of the Death Star II to Vader's funeral pyre.

    There are other changes (both 1997 vintage and new to this set), but they are for the most part do not affect the movie one way or the other, at least in my opinion.

    The 3 movies are still fun to watch, so as far as I'm concerned, the purchase was worth it. It would be nice to be able to get the original movies on DVD, too.

    • ...about the '97 release was that horrible sequence with Han and Jabba in EP4. What were they thinking?

      In EP6, Jabba looked huge, and disgusting... like he was supposed to be. For some reason he didn't look either huge or disgusting, or particularly intimidating either.

      And hell, they even had Han repeating lines from the Greedo scene ("Hey, even I get boarded sometimes"). Were they even trying??

      • Re:What really pissed me off... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by _xeno_ ( 155264 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:14PM (#10377155) Homepage Journal
        That scene really was supposed to be in the original movie, though. They just didn't have the technology at the time to pull it off.

        (The original idea, I think, was to replace the actor standing in for Jabba with a puppet shot on a blue screen.)

        However, after it became apparent that they couldn't do that scene with current technology, they moved all the information learned in that scene to the scene with Greedo.

        So, yes, the scene is totally redundant and looked wrong (because it was originally designed around a different Jabba) as shot. This is why the 1997 version had Han Solo step on Jabbas tail - Harrison Ford walked around the stand-in in the original shot, before they really knew what Jabba would look like.

        Ultimately, it's one of those scenes that it's kinda neat to know that we can do it now, but serves no purpose any more since they basically wrote it out of the original movie. It's something that they could have done as a bonus feature or something, since it doesn't really offer anything new to the story.

        I can't really find any good links on it, but it's mentioned several times [google.com] if you search for it.

    • (actually, I have mixed feeling on this one -- I know that the Emperor was killed, but would the Empire crumble that quickly? We are talking about hours to a day or so from the destruction of the Death Star II to Vader's funeral pyre.)
      Timothy Zahn's first trilogy of SW novels explains this. The gist is that the Emperor was using his powers in the force to keep the Empire together and when he died the power structure sort of 'snapped out of it'

  • I like this (Score:5, Funny)

    by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @02:28PM (#10376617)
    Here's a situation where none of us has RTFA.
  • When I first read this headline, I thought it meant there were 11,000 words on the DVD itself (or within the DVD package). Then I read the caption and, well, it made more sense. But I was much more excited when I initially thought that Lucas & Co. had written a ton of stuff for Star Wars fanatics to enjoy... or hate, whatever.

  • comprehensive list of changes from original movies (Score:3)

    by sjf ( 3790 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @02:43PM (#10376814)
    Is there such a thing ? Does this review offer it ?

    Appeals to my inner nerd anyhoo.

    -S

  • blocks reign supreme!!! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sootman ( 158191 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:22PM (#10377261) Homepage Journal
    with all the zillions of dollars lucas spent cleaning it up, how did NO ONE notice the blocks still visible around the TIE fighters during the fight scene with the falcon in Ep 4?!?!?

    trilogy owners: look at 1:35:16 for one example.

  • Going from great to good (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jnd3 ( 116181 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @04:06PM (#10377678) Homepage
    I haven't seen anyone else, anywhere, mentioning the ONE thing that absolutely ruined ESB for me. The scene occurs right after Luke jumps down the shaft in Cloud City. Darth Vader is walking out, and the only words out of his mouth are a husky-sounding, "Bring my shuttle." There was a depth of emotion -- anger, sadness -- that I picked up on in that little scene.

    Now they've got this lame voice-over from Vader, "Alert the commander to prepare for my arrival," or something like that. Throw in some re-used footage from RotJ (Vader's Death Star II arrival) for when he lands on his flagship and you've taken ALL the emotion out of Vader's revelation and its consequences (at least on his part).

    Everything else I could cope with ... yeah, Han shoots first, but whatever ... more digital aliens, gives the ILM guys good practice ... but in my opinion that single scene took a great movie and made it into a merely good movie.

Slashdot Top Deals

To the landlord belongs the doorknobs.

Close